This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: negative latencies
- From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal <ajit dot kumar dot agarwal at xilinx dot com>
- To: shmeel gutl <shmeelgutl at shmuelhome dot mine dot nu>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:02:48 +0000
- Subject: RE: negative latencies
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 184.108.40.206) smtp dot mailfrom=ajit dot kumar dot agarwal at xilinx dot com;
- References: <5379A125 dot 5090405 at shmuelhome dot mine dot nu> <CA+=Sn1mKxdyZ1cT6z9JH5Q8V+pazL-9KpjHL2HUej1woE8_GpA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5379AA33 dot 8090901 at shmuelhome dot mine dot nu>
Is it the case of code speculation where the negative latencies are used?
Thanks & Regards
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of shmeel gutl
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 12:23 PM
To: Andrew Pinski
Cc: email@example.com; Vladimir Makarov
Subject: Re: negative latencies
On 19-May-14 09:39 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:13 PM, shmeel gutl
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Are there hooks in gcc to deal with negative latencies? In other
>> words, an architecture that permits an instruction to use a result
>> from an instruction that will be issued later.
> Do you mean bypasses? If so there is a bypass feature which you can use:
> Andrew Pinski
Unfortunately, bypasses in the pipeline description is not enough.
They only allow you to calculate the latency of true dependencies. They are also forced to be zero or greater. The real question is how the scheduler and register allocator can deal with negative latencies.
>> At first glance it seems that it will will break a few things.
>> 1) The definition of dependencies cannot come from the simple
>> ordering of rtl.
>> 2) The scheduling problem starts to look like "get off the train 3
>> stops before me".
>> 3) The definition of live ranges needs to use actual instruction
>> timing information, not just instruction sequencing.
>> The hooks in the scheduler seem to be enough to stop damage but not
>> enough to take advantage of this "feature".
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3950/7515 - Release Date: